One Direction star Louis Tomlinson will soon add soccer team owner to his resume after reaching an agreement to take over his beloved Doncaster Rovers Football Club. The British singer, who played with Doncaster's reserve squad in February (14), recently teamed up with former club chairman John Ryan to discuss a buyout with the team's current owners, Terry Bramall and Dick Watson, and a deal has reportedly been struck.
An official announcement about the acquisition was due to take place during a press conference at London's Wembley Stadium on Friday (06Jun14), before the first of One Direction's three sold-out gigs at the venue, but the media gathering was postponed amid concerns about Tomlinson's image rights.
The meeting has been rescheduled for next Wednesday (11Jun14), according to the BBC.
Under the terms of the deal, Tomlinson, 22, will reportedly serve as club co-chairman, but he and his business partners will face a challenge turning the team's fortunes around after Doncaster Rovers were relegated to the third tier of English soccer in May (14).
The successful Rovers takeover bid will come as a great distraction for the singer, who faced a backlash last week (ends30May14) when video footage, featuring Tomlinson and bandmate Zayn Malik smoking a marijuana blunt while in Peru, surfaced online.
The pair still has yet to comment directly on the drug scandal, but bandmate Liam Payne recently spoke out on his pals' behalf, insisting the stars are only young and will make mistakes as they grow up.

Paramount via Everett Collection
We all know the saying about how you can't pick your relatives but you can pick your friends. Unfortunately, in high school, most people are limited to those other poor souls that are slouching through the halls to get from class to class.
Every teen movie made has seemingly adhered to some form of the cliques that occur in high school, those groupings based on looks, interests or intelligence that make up the social caste system. What if, however, you could make your own clique, using characters from those films that fit into those stereotypical profiles? It would certainly have made for a more entertaining high school experience, as well as at least one killer party. Who would we pick? Here's our choices...
VIEW GALLERY: The Ultimate Teen Movie High School Clique
Follow @Hollywood_com
//
Follow @LifeAsSitcom
//

BBC
The Sherlock Season 3 finale saw the introduction of an entirely new criminal mastermind: Charles Augustus Magnussen (Lars Mikkelsen)... although technically he was around all season, and was responsible for almost burning John Watson alive in “The Empty Hearse.” But how does Magnussen compare to the fans’ favorite consulting criminal, James Moriarty (Andrew Scott)? Warning: Big Season 3 spoilers follow.
LongevityWell, Moriarty stuck it out through Seasons 1 and 2 (and might return for the fourth season) while Magnussen was only around for Season 3. Given that Moriarty might have survived his supposed death (I can’t trust anything anymore!) he will have outlived Magnussen.Moriarty 1, Magnussen 0
Criminal NetworkIt took two years for Sherlock to take down Moriarty’s network of fellow criminals, so it must have been expansive. However, we have no idea how many people Magnussen was blackmailing or had blackmailed in the past. It could be in the hundreds or thousands.Moriarty 1, Magnussen 1
Difficulty to DefeatThere was a moment for Sherlock when it seemed each villain would be undefeatable, but when we get down to it, Sherlock merely needed to kill Magnussen (which he did fairly easily) while the detective needed to plan an elaborate fake death in order to beat Moriarty.Moriarty 2, Magnussen 1
Fan ResponseGiven the fan reactions on social media to the last minute twist of “His Last Vow,” the majority of the fandom is beyond excited for the return of Moriarty. Meanwhile, everyone was glad to see Magnussen go. The fans have a clear favorite.Moriarty 3, Magnussen 1
MannersMoriarty had tea with Sherlock, while Magnussen relieved himself in Sherlock’s fireplace. His finishing school teachers would have been appalled (we were certainly horrified). Moriarty 4, Magnussen 1
Winner: Jim Moriarty!
Follow @Hollywood_com
//
Follow @mollyrockit
//

WENN
Remember when Martin Freeman could do no wrong? We do and it was a fantastic time. We were charmed by his characters. He played the often befuddled foil to Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes, the hapless hobbit Bilbo Baggins on his first adventure. Freeman had a great mix of charm and British wit, and it felt like he was some kind of cheeky secret that our friends across the Atlantic had been keeping from us. He was great performer that we all enjoyed immensly. But then he made a rape joke, and just like that, the honeymoon was over.
In a recent interview for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, the actor makes a this joke about dating an elf as a shorter creature:
"I've got a ladder. It's fine. And I’ve got drugs. I could just make them — you know. Slip them something in their goblet. Some will get offended by that now. Cause they’ll call it 'rape' or whatever. But, um, you know. For me, it's a helping hand. Maybe I should stop talking."
It’s a joke he should have recognized was a problem by the second word. The kind of comment that hurts to read, especially considering whose mouth it’s coming from. It's that special mix of unfunny and offensive, and you’re just begging him to stop speaking... but he keeps going, digging himself deeper and deeper into his inappropriate quip until he puts down the shovel and just starts to bulldoze his reputation into the ground. With all that said, we do have to acknowledge that everyone slips up from time to time. Maybe this was just an isolated incident of a bad joke taken too far, and our sensitive American sensibilities are just being rustled by his dry British humor. Unfortunately, the actor has a long history of saying less than savory things about certain subjects. Not jokes, but serious and earnest comments that don't paint him in the best light. He facetiously called actress Lucy Liu a dog and a very unattractive woman, he is staunchly anti-multiculturalism, and he has some very inflammatory things to say about Muslims: "We've reached a state now where it's, 'You shouldn't notice. Why are you noticing he's got a bomb and has a beard and is Muslim and wants to kill your family?'"
So after knowing his thoughts on these issues, can we simply go back and watch John Watson or Bilbo Baggins the same way we once did? Should we separate the performer from the performance? And even if we believe we should, how easy is that to do when those bad comments are still lying in the back of our minds, prodding our every thought of the actor? Just by the nature of the craft, the audiences build a relationship with the actor in a physical context. It would be easier to let these comments fall away and enjoy Freeman's work separately from his opinions if he were a novelist or a director. An actor's biggest canvas is his face, and it's hard to forget the things that Freeman has said when his creative output requires you to look directly at him. The trouble is that John Watson has the same face as the man who made a terrible rape joke. Bilbo Baggins shares the same face as a man who stands firmly against the mixing of cultures. It's a hard feat of mental gymnastics to get around these associations our brains freely make.
So what our editors think of the Martin Freeman situation, and can they enjoy his work the same way they did in the past?
Julia Emmanuele
Martin Freeman and Me (Before): I think I properly discovered Martin Freeman when he starred in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and I was a huge fan of his. I would go out of my way to see films simply because he was in them, and I would recommend a lot of his work to my friends and many of them became fans of his through my introduction. I always thought he came across as such a good, likeable guy, and that he was extremely funny, and great at taking throwaway lines and small moments and making them the funniest parts of the film. I especially loved him as Watson, because I thought the role combined his sense of humor and his every-man likability with some serious, dramatic moments, and that he was perfect for the role.
Martin Freeman and Me (Now): I’m not really a fan of his at all anymore. It’s a bit weird, having him go from being one of my favorite actors to one that I try and avoid, but I just can’t really find it in me to blindly support him. It also puts me in the uncomfortable position of deciding whether to tell someone about the comments that he’s made, or letting them find out on their own. I don’t have a vendetta against him, so I don’t really tend to advertise the bad things about him, but it’s a bit weird to then sit quietly next to someone who is praising him effusively. I still think he’s a talented actor, and I can appreciate when he gives a good performance in something, but I don’t think I will ever be able to support him in the same way that I did, and I won’t go out of my way to watch the films and shows he’s in anymore.
Michael Arbeiter
Martin Freeman and Me (Before): At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I reveled in the comic talents of Martin Freeman as if he were a modern day Chaplin. His mastery of the subtle flip of his neck or furrow of his brow has cracked me up in The Hobbit movies, in The World's End, on Sherlock, et al. He's captivatingly uncomfortable at all times onscreen, and has yet to dole out a performance that I've found anything less than uproarious.
Martin Freeman and Me (Now): I struggle with this every time I endorse a Roman Polanski movie or yell at somebody for buying a Chris Brown album. It's difficult to draw the line. When does a piece of art maintain ties to its creator, and when can we emancipate it altogether? When it comes to music and acting, I think it's easier to let yourself judge the man or woman along with the performance. The art forms are so personal and directly involving of the performer that you're not likely to forget who you're watching... unless you're talking about the masters of drama, like Joaquin Phoenix and Daniel Day-Lewis. Since finding out about Freeman's intolerances, I haven't engaged with anything new: no new episodes of Sherlock have reached America, and I had already seen The Desolation of Smaug. I imagine that his personal reputation will sour my experience if only a bit, although I can't say that I would call my inability to judge his art independently entirely justified.
Jordan Smith
Martin Freeman and Me (Before): All of his characters have this easy going and bumbling charm about them, and even in interviews outside of his film or television roles, he has a brash wit to him that’s darker and more bracing than that of the characters he usually plays, but he still manages to charm in the same way. I was late to the Martin Freeman party, and first really took notice of him in Sherlock, but ever since, I’ve actively sought out his work. It's easy to just assume that actors on television or on the big screen are as nice or welcoming as the characters they play, and I assumed Martin Freeman was someone with whom I could identify with.
Martin Freeman and Me (Now): For me, at the end of the day, the man is still damn good at his job. I can’t deny that he is a gifted actor. He has said many things in the past that have made me uncomfortable, but he hasn’t, to my knowledge, done anything evil or malicious to anyone, even though his thoughts and words leave me thinking less of him, I tend to believe that you should separate the performer from his performance. If you look deeply enough into anyone's past, you would probably come up with some nasty things they've said or done, and I wouldn't necessarily boycott every actor whose opinions or ideas I disagree with. And that's the big sticking point with Freeman. Martin's words are just words and not actions. I still enjoy his work and I will still seek out his future projects, even if some nagging thoughts in the back of my mind reminds Mr. Freeman and I wouldn’t agree on many subjects.

BBC One/Getty/BBC
It seems the BBC has found their ratings guru in Steven Moffat; as showrunner for both Doctor Who and Sherlock, he’s pulled in some of the biggest numbers for the network. The Doctor Who 50th anniversary special was watched by 10.6 million viewers, the Christmas special by 8.3 million people while the Sherlock season three premiere garnered the attention of 9.2 million viewers. It’s safe to say that — at least ratings wise — Moffat is BBC’s not-so-secret weapon.
However, discontent has been brewing within the Doctor Who fandom about Moffat’s complex storylines (he tries to fit a whole 2-hour story into a 1-hour episode). Fans have also criticized the lack of character development and his total aversion to a female Doctor (referring to a female Doctor as being like a cross-dressing Queen of England).
While Russell T. Davies was executive producer of Doctor Who, Moffat wrote many episodes that are some of the fans’ favorites, but viewers are skeptical of his ability to run the whole series.
On the contrary, pretty much every complaint fans have of Moffat’s Doctor Who works to his advantage when it comes to Sherlock. Complex plotlines? They’re great when you have an extra hour to fill. Character development? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle took care of it. Female characters? Who needs them! The fans come back again and again for John Watson (Martin Freeman) and Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch).
Which is why we’re proposing that Moffat give up Doctor Who — which might be raking in the ratings, but who knows how long that will continue — and focus primarily on Sherlock. Then, everyone will be happy and we won’t have to wait another two years for more Sherlock.
Follow @Hollywood_com
//
Follow @mollyrockit
//

BBC One
The New York Times reported that an American judge ruled that Sherlock Holmes, along with friends and foes John Watson, Mycroft Holmes, Moriarty, and more of Arthur Conan Doyle's characters, are now in the United States public domain. The judgement means that no copyright law applies to the use of story elements in any Holme adventures published before 1923. There were a few after that, so adaptors have to take care to not run up a bill with the author's estate by using any characters or plots introduced in those later works. But forget that advice, because we are all set with Sherlock reboots at the moment.
Unless you're as culturally clueless as the detective himself, you know that the character has had a massive renaissance these last few years. Robert Downey Jr. imbued Holmes with serious swagger in the Guy Ritchie-helmed 2009 film version. Between that movie and its sequel, Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat and writer Mark Gatiss launched a phenomenon to drive the internet to insane acts of meme-ing in 2010 with the slick BBC series. And CBS got into the game with its own modernized take Elementary, this time set in New York City and with a Joan, not a John. Even our collective obsession with forensic procedurals hinted at the successful resurgence of this character. There wouldn't be an NCIS without Sherlock Holmes.
And now he's free. And it's tempting. But between Jude Law and RDJ's chemistry; Benedict Cumberbatch's cheekbones; and Jonny Lee Miller's mania, there just isn't room out here for another version. At least not a good one. Any attempt to create a Holmes that doesn't directly copy any of these interpretations will just lead to a watered-down or barely recognizable imitation. And Sherlock deserves better than that.
Follow @Hollywood_com
//

Actor Martin Freeman is set to wed his longtime girlfriend Amanda Abbington - on hit TV show Sherlock. The Brit's character Dr. Watson will surprise fans by walking down the aisle when the hugely popular detective series returns to U.K. screens for a third series next week (begs30Dec13).
The faithful sidekick to super sleuth Sherlock Holmes, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, will marry Mary Morstan, who will be played by Freeman's real life partner of 13 years, Abbington.
He says, "It wasn't a John (Lennon) and Yoko (Ono) thing, where I said, 'I want my missus (girlfriend) in'.
"I think they (casting directors) had thought about it and Amanda is a really good Mary. If she was nothing to do with me, she'd still be someone who'd definitely come up for it."
Abbington's casting in the show prompted a backlash from some fans earlier this year (13), with Internet trolls going as far as to issue death threats to the actress via Twitter.com.
Freeman subsequently slammed the online abusers, saying, "To me, they're not fans of the show, they're fans of a show going on in their heads. Obviously I love Amanda and I want everyone to react positively to her; she plays a fantastic character and brings a hell of a lot to the third series."

Sherlock lives!
The BBC has released a new trailer for the upcoming season of Sherlock, which features the long-awaited return of the show's eponymous sleuth, but it seems like Sherlock’s return isn’t a cause of celebration for everyone at 221B Baker Street. Apparently, the various characters of Stephen Moffat’s modern day retelling of the Sherlock Holmes stories have been waiting just as long as we have to figure out how Sherlock survived his sacrificial leap at the end of Season 2. A whole two years has passed by since Sherlock's "death" and an angry looking and newly-mustachioed John Watson isn’t interested in how Sherlock did it (and that "how" better be pretty darn fantastic considering we’ve been waiting two years to find it out) but wants to know why he did it. Watson has moved on in his life, and it doesn't look like he needs Sherlock's brand of disruption mucking things up for him yet again.
WireWax/BBC
Besides all of the hoopla over Sherlock's reappearance, the trailer teases an upcoming terrorist threat that's set to hit London, and it's up to Sherlock to save the city... which he'll probably do by noticing the bread crumbs on someone's jacket, or some dried mud on a shoe. Season 3 of Sherlock will premiere on January 19 on PBS.
Follow @Hollywood_com
Follow @CurrentlyJordan

Daniel Deme/WENN
That Benedict Cumberbatch from the BBC's Sherlock is the subject of gay erotic fixations across the Chinese Internet will undoubtedly be complicated by the coming out of Andrew Scott, the actor portraying Jim Moriarty on the same series.
Quietly conceding his sexuality in an interview with The Independent, the actor may have inadvertently provided fodder for the slash fiction frenzy in China that fantasizes Holmes and Watson as happily compromised. Hopefully the inevitable sexual three-way will not threaten the deep working connection between the heartthrob crime fighters. That would be bad for all of us.
Making matters worse, Scott's depiction of Sherlock's nemesis beat out Martin Freeman's John Watson for best supporting actor at last year's BAFTA Awards. Yikes. Bad set up for a love triangle, that sort of competition. Dudes are messy when it comes to that stuff.
Follow @Hollywood_com
//

Plans to launch a series of Harry Potter-themed stamps in the U.S. have angered die-hard collectors who insist the honour should be reserved for American icons. The U.S. Postal Service is set to release 100 million stamps featuring British stars including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint as their characters from the popular film series as part of an initiative to encourage younger citizens to take an interest in philately.
However, the plans have outraged collectors, who complain the characters, dreamed up by Scottish author J.K. Rowling, do not deserve a place on U.S. stamps because they are not an American creation.
Members of the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, the board which helps the U.S. Postal Service decide on the honours, are also opposed to placing movie stills on the stamps instead of illustrations.
Former president of the American Philatelic Society John Hotchner tells the Washington Post, "Harry Potter is not American. It's foreign, and it's so blatantly commercial it's off the charts. The Postal Service knows what will sell, but that's not what stamps ought to be about."